Coming up: Shortest and least deadly school shooting in history

[GoldenRivet]

http://news.yahoo.com/texas-town-allows-teachers-carry-concealed-guns-081017416.html

Texas understands it... :up:

[Tribesman]

So if it goes off instead of a school shooting will it be a going postal situation where life on gets too much for a person with a gun and they rampage their workplace.
Texas understands it:har:

[AVGWarhawk]

In remote Harrold, the nearest sheriff's office is 30 minutes away, and people tend to know — and trust — one another. So the school board voted to let teachers bring guns to school.

If you know and trust someone why the need for a gun:06:

[AVGWarhawk]

I find some of the reasoning to allow the teachers to carry guns in school a bit odd and reaching.

[GoldenRivet]

ask the neighbors of this kid and his mother up in Sandy Hook... you ever really know your neighbor?

the guy next door to me could be just brimming over first thing tomorrow morning with enough rage to gun down mall patrons. I wouldnt know

I say arm the teachers that wish to be armed... of all the teachers i have known in my life as a student, and just known personally, i have known them to be trustworthy responsible people.

if just one of the sandy hook teachers had a firearm, who knows? this entire tragedy could have been prevented or the death toll greatly reduced.

all i know for sure is if i were going to send my kid off to public school first thing on a monday morning, i'd feel better if the teacher had a colt .45 under his coat

sad we live in such a time where someone would feel that way, but we do.

[Sailor Steve]

So if it goes off instead of a school shooting will it be a going postal situation where life on gets too much for a person with a gun and they rampage their workplace.
Texas understands it:har:
Huh? Some of Yubba's rants make more sense than that.

[GoldenRivet]

Huh? Some of Yubba's rants make more sense than that.

He is being negative.

I posted it so he has to find a reason to disagree with it.

in Tribesman's mind the options are

1. school shooting with unarmed teachers results in kids getting killed

2. arm the teachers they will just freak out mid algebra and kill the kids anyhow

:shifty:

riiiiight

[AVGWarhawk]

all i know for sure is if i were going to send my kid off to public school first thing on a monday morning, i'd feel better if the teacher had a colt .45 under his coat

sad we live in such a time where someone would feel that way, but we do.

Yes it is and I do worry from time to time concerning my daughters in HS. There is a county officer assigned to the school all day. It has been this way for years. He is armed and can effect arrest like his fellow officers. I do believe he deters would be issues.

[Takeda Shingen]

I can't believe that any teachers union would pass off on the liability of having it's members armed. But, this is Texas, where gun violence is a way of life.

[August]

http://news.yahoo.com/texas-town-allows-teachers-carry-concealed-guns-081017416.html

Texas understands it... :up:


Exactly. Gun Free Zones are testaments to mans stupidity. Might as well hang a "Come here and kill us because we can't do nothing about it" sign on the door.

Now I imagine that some fool will try and claim that it puts the school in danger of a teacher going rouge but they could do that anyways even if they couldn't legally carry.

All gun control laws do is disarm the folks who could maybe stop these murders before they happen.

[Sailor Steve]

He is being negative.
My comment wasn't about his attitude, or his opinion. It was about the fact that part of his sentence literally made no sense.

[Tribesman]

riiiiight
Wrong.
Like you say yourself.I find some of the reasoning to allow the teachers to carry guns in school a bit odd and reaching.

Or put it another way, if guns are the problem how are guns the answer.

One puzzling thing, if the school cannot afford security how can it afford to have 1 member of staff for every 2 pupils?

[August]

I can't believe that any teachers union would pass of on the liability of having it's members armed. But, this is Texas, where gun violence is a way of life.

No you're thinking of states like California and Illinois...

[Dowly]

It might work in a situation where there is trust and respect between the teachers
and students. But in larger schools? What would prevent a student from flipping
out and attacking the teacher and taking his/her gun?

[GoldenRivet]

Yes it is and I do worry from time to time concerning my daughters in HS. There is a county officer assigned to the school all day. It has been this way for years. He is armed and can effect arrest like his fellow officers. I do believe he deters would be issues.

Liaison officers :up:

i recall having one when i went to high school, he mostly broke up fist fights and even served warrants on a couple of seniors once. but thats pretty much it thankfully. all the kids liked him, stopped between classes to visit with him, knew him by name though i cannot recall his name now :hmm2:

he really helped the kids associate good things with the police force

i think the problem with having uniformed liaison officers on school property is that they will usually be the first targeted in a shooting and would never know what hit them thereby eliminating them as a deterrent if the situation came up.

when i was a kid growing up we never really had school shootings or even really heard of such things happening. I was entering my sophomore year and we heard that a kid had a gun on school property but it ended up being a hunting rifle in the back window of the truck - he had brought his father's truck to school because his wouldn't start. The only thing that came of it was that his dad had to come to the school and retrieve the rifle and it was back to business as usual.

i remember another year there was a "bomb scare" when a teacher found a suspicious package in the school court yard. school was delayed about 2 hours (i ended up just staying home all day) it ended up being nothing and there was no threat of any kind so it was just more or less a matter of approaching the situation with caution.

[August]

It might work in a situation where there is trust and respect between the teachers
and students. But in larger schools? What would prevent a student from flipping
out and attacking the teacher and taking his/her gun?

The fact that it is hidden? The fact that it would likely be locked up in a desk drawer?

[Tribesman]

Huh? Some of Yubba's rants make more sense than that.

It was about the fact that part of his sentence literally made no sense.
Really?
what is the difference between other shootings and someone going postal?

[GoldenRivet]

I can't believe that any teachers union would pass off on the liability of having it's members armed. But, this is Texas, where gun violence is a way of life.

I was unaware that gun violence was a way of life in Texas. I can't personally say i have ever experienced it, and can only claim to have known one person who i know who has.

of course he has a concealed handgun permit so the situation pretty much was settled right away

[Takeda Shingen]

No you're thinking of states like California and Illinois...

No, I'm thinking of Texas.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state

Number of Gun Homicides for 2011:

1. California 1220
2. Texas 699
3. Pennsylvania 470

[Sailor Steve]

Or put it another way, if guns are the problem how are guns the answer.
Because guns aren't the problem. The problem is that some people are insane. We can't seem to cure them, or even spot them before they harm someone else, so we come up with different ideas about how to protect ourselves.

Of course your answer is to ridicule any opinion that differs from yours.

[GoldenRivet]

699... thats pretty good i think :up:

not bad at all for 25M residents and a high number of em being gun slingers :shucks:

[Sailor Steve]

Really?
what is the difference between other shootings and someone going postal?
I wasn't talking about your attitude or your opinion. I was talking about the sentence itself. If you read what you wrote you would know that.
:rotfl2:

[Takeda Shingen]

669... thats pretty good i think :up:

not bad at all for 25M residents and a high number of em being gun slingers :shucks:

As long as you're cool with being number 2 in the nation for gun violence, then okay, by all mean arm everybody.

Silliness.

[Tribesman]

Because guns aren't the problem. The problem is that some people are insane.
So the problem is insane people getting guns.

We can't seem to cure them, or even spot them before they harm someone else

So you can't seem to tell which people will flip.

so we come up with different ideas about how to protect ourselves.
And the idea is to give people guns, people which you cannot tell if they are going to flip.
:hmmm:
you really shot down your own attempt there

[GoldenRivet]

We have armed pilots why not armed teachers?

they should have a word of the day every day that changes.

If you hear shots lock the doors turn off the lights and move the kids to a non visible corner of the room, the teacher then draws the side arm, aims it at the door and awaits the secure word before unlocking the door, opening it and holstering the weapon.

piece of cake.

if gunman gains access to the room, fire the side arm until all ammunition is expended and let the authorities worry about cleaning his gray matter off the chalk board.

[Sailor Steve]

So the problem is insane people getting guns.
No, the problem is telling who is insane before hand. Your answer is to disarm everybody, which still leaves insane people around. And which is impossible anyway.

So you can't seem to tell which people will flip.
True. When your insane neighbor kills your family by some other means, your friends will mourn you. When my insane neighbor comes into my home and tries to kill me, I'll shoot him.

And the idea is to give people guns, people which you cannot tell if they are going to flip.
:hmmm:
No, my answer is to try to figure out a way to tell who is insane. In the meantime, my answer is to try to protect my family any way I can.

you really shot down your own attempt there
You really showed your trademarked arrogance there. You really are Skybird's twin.

[Takeda Shingen]

We have armed pilots why not armed teachers?

they should have a word of the day every day that changes.

If you hear shots lock the doors turn off the lights and move the kids to a non visible corner of the room, the teacher then draws the side arm, aims it at the door and awaits the secure word before unlocking the door, opening it and holstering the weapon.

piece of cake.

if gunman gains access to the room, fire the side arm until all ammunition is expended and let the authorities worry about cleaning his gray matter off the chalk board.

Except that schools already do that. They drill on it every month, minus the firearm. I don't know how your schools are, but the classrooms have doors up here that you aren't getting into once they are locked, at least not before the authorities arrive. The problem with this most recent shooting was that the shooter was already in the classroom and shooting before the lockdown sounded. In that case, the damage is already done, and no volume of additional firearms will undo it.

[GoldenRivet]

As long as you're cool with being number 2 in the nation for gun violence, then okay, by all mean arm everybody.

Silliness.

i am cool with it...

you're telling me 699 gun related deaths in Texas for 2011? what were the situations with each? how many of those killed were drug dealers or addicts?

there were half that many homicides in the entire city of Detroit alone. 1/3 that number in Baltimore.

yes, im glad my state has roughly the same number of homicides state wide as some cities do. thats not remotely silly.

[Sailor Steve]

The problem with this most recent shooting was that the shooter was already in the classroom and shooting before the lockdown sounded. In that case, the damage is already done, and no volume of additional firearms will undo it.
And if one of the teachers who died trying to attack the attacker had been armed, it might have ended there.

[Takeda Shingen]

And if one of the teachers who died trying to attack the attacker had been armed, it might have ended there.

And if we had floors that we could electrify, we could have cooked the intruder in his own juices.

The goal is to prevent the deaths in the first place, which means stopping these types of people at the door. Once the shooting starts, children are going to die and we have already failed, regardless of how many Dirty Harrys we have around. This is what exasperates me with this arm everybody argument. It is not only a poor answer, it is a lazy one too.

[GoldenRivet]

As long as you're cool with being number 2 in the nation for gun violence, then okay, by all mean arm everybody.

Silliness.

you can manipulate the numbers as you wish...

I'll do manipulating of my own.

here:

if you look at it as gun deaths as a percentage of ALL murders per state...

Texas doesnt even rank in the top 20 :smug:

or how about the rate of assaults committed by firearms...

Texas doesnt even rank in the top 10

Fire arms murder rate?

again Texas doesnt even place in the top 20 a good 15 spots below Pennsylvania

[AVGWarhawk]

And if we had floors that we could electrify, we could have cooked the intruder in his own juices.



That is damn brilliant and I'm betting fun to watch! :yeah:

[GoldenRivet]

And if we had floors that we could electrify, we could have cooked the intruder in his own juices.

The goal is to prevent the deaths in the first place, which means stopping these types of people at the door. Once the shooting starts, children are going to die and we have already failed, regardless of how many Dirty Harrys we have around. This is what exasperates me with this arm everybody argument. It is not only a poor answer, it is a lazy one too.

I agree with stopping them at the door, but the first line of defense shouldnt be the only line of defense

[Takeda Shingen]

That is damn brilliant and I'm betting fun to watch! :yeah:

Good post. Good post.

[Takeda Shingen]

I agree with stopping them at the door, but the first line of defense shouldnt be the only line of defense

We have that. Again, the lockdown saved the lives of every other student in that building. The problem was that the shooter got inside if the first place without triggering said lockdown. How did he do that? How can we stop that? Those are where our attention should be directed, not at this concealed carry red herring.

[GoldenRivet]

i think architecturally speaking schools tend to be too "open"

there was a high school that opened around here a few years ago... there are three points of entry by road each of which are gated with a guard present, the school is surrounded by a fence i would wager is at least 10 feet high, and beyond the fence is at least 200 yards of open pasture all around the entire school.

short of emergency exits there are only a couple of primary entrances to the entire school and all of the class rooms must be entered from within the school.

at first i thought "how the hell would i have ever skipped school here? this is brilliant!"

then i got to thinking, wow, some nut job would have a hard time getting into this place easily.

[AVGWarhawk]

We have that. Again, the lockdown saved the lives of every other student in that building. The problem was that the shooter got inside if the first place without triggering said lockdown. How did he do that? How can we stop that? Those are where our attention should be directed, not at this concealed carry red herring.

My kids school have a camera in every hallway. The campus is patrolled by a armed officer. The outer doors are locked from getting in but not out. The campus is 6 building(it's like a mini college). There are fences that surround the campus. It is nice fencing and does not look like a prison but effective fencing to impede possible jumpers. Every plan is not fool proof. At lease there is some plan.

[Nippelspanner]

Arming the teachers huh?
Well lets see how long it takes until we read about a teacher shooting half his class... :-?

[Sailor Steve]

And if we had floors that we could electrify, we could have cooked the intruder in his own juices.
My statement was relevant. Yours is not.

The goal is to prevent the deaths in the first place, which means stopping these types of people at the door.
I completely agree. The real problem is to stop the bad people. It would be nice if we could stop the bad people from ever getting guns. But we can't. And taking guns away from the good people, which seems to be the other sides only answer, won't work either.

Once the shooting starts, children are going to die and we have already failed, regardless of how many Dirty Harrys we have around. This is what exasperates me with this arm everybody argument.
True, but this part of the discussion is about what do once we've failed and the shooting starts. Close our eyes and pray the bad guy goes away. Wait for the police to arrive? Or maybe do something about it now.

It is not only a poor answer, it is a lazy one too.
No, it is neither. It's a backup plan, an answer for what to do once the shooting starts. That you disagree with it is fine. That you think it is a bad idea is also fine. Is it truly a bad idea? We won't know that until the next time the shooting starts.

People had this same discussion when the nutcase drove his pickup truck through the window of the diner in Killeen, Texas, and started shooting people. John Walsh got the shock of his life when he gathered the survivors together and asked what they though could have been done. One woman said "I wish I hadn't left my gun in the truck." The others all agreed. People said that was the wrong attituded, but when two armed men robbed a diner in Anniston, Alabama, and tried to lock everybody in the freezer, one of the patrons pulled his gun and shot them both.

So it's not a bad idea, or a lazy one. It's just one idea of what to do once the shooting starts.

You can argue, and Tribesman can ridicule, but we won't know if it's a good idea or a bad one until it actually happens. Nobody wants that, but sooner or later it will. Then we'll see.

[GoldenRivet]

Arming the teachers huh?
Well lets see how long it takes until we read about a teacher shooting half his class... :-?

Dont worry, they didnt just give old Mrs. Jenkins a Texas Department of Education Issue Taurus Judge and say "shoot bad guys iffin any of em show up causin trouble on this here place of learnin'."

[Sailor Steve]

Arming the teachers huh?
Well lets see how long it takes until we read about a teacher shooting half his class... :-?
A teacher can do that now. He (or she) can sneak a gun into a class as easily as anybody else. It's very very rare that someone who has gone to the trouble of taking the training to get a CCP is the person who does something like this.

[GoldenRivet]

A teacher can do that now. He (or she) can sneak a gun into a class as easily as anybody else. It's very very rare that someone who has gone to the trouble of taking the training to get a CCP is the person who does something like this.

or in the case of FFDOs gone through psychological eval and gone through at their own expense annual safety training etc.

nail head... meet hammer.

[AVGWarhawk]

Arming the teachers huh?
Well lets see how long it takes until we read about a teacher shooting half his class... :-?


Getting approved to teach in a public school is a bit more than just an interview. There is a 4 step process to gain employment in the school systems here in MD. Background check, interview, testing, fingerprinting and extensive calls to references. Not everyone is approved.

[Onkel Neal]

ask the neighbors of this kid and his mother up in Sandy Hook... you ever really know your neighbor?

the guy next door to me could be just brimming over first thing tomorrow morning with enough rage to gun down mall patrons. I wouldnt know

I say arm the teachers that wish to be armed... of all the teachers i have known in my life as a student, and just known personally, i have known them to be trustworthy responsible people.

if just one of the sandy hook teachers had a firearm, who knows? this entire tragedy could have been prevented or the death toll greatly reduced.

all i know for sure is if i were going to send my kid off to public school first thing on a monday morning, i'd feel better if the teacher had a colt .45 under his coat

sad we live in such a time where someone would feel that way, but we do.

I would not prefer any/all teachers to be carrying, but I am 100% in favor of training principals and APs and issuing them emergency shotgun, in a secure place in their office. At least until this craze passes.

[Takeda Shingen]

My statement was relevant. Yours is not.

No, the point was extreemly relevant. You just don't like where the relevance is going. It does, however address everything else you've stated, so I will go through it.

There are any number of lethal ways that we could put down an intruder once he is in the classroom. However, once he is in the classroom, it is too late; people will die. Since the object is to prevent these shootings in the first place, prevent the mental anguish to the student and keep the classroom as a safe environment where the student (especially the young student) is comfortable and able to learn, bullets flying in the classroom, electric floors in the classroom, brains on the wall in the classroom, et al, are a failure. Prevention is the key, and that is not prevention. Of course, mental health services and the like must be examined, but that is beyond the scope of a school district and it's employees. What has to happen is a reexaminiation of security procedures. Cameras are a must now. Every school I worked at had cameras at the main entrance, but did not have them in the halls as they are for AVG. That is a must now. Once the lockdown is sounded, those children are safe. Schools must work on their methods of determining when the lockdown should sound. As I had stated in another thread, every elementary school I ever visited had a door that was unlocked. Everyone knew how to get in. That has to stop.

[AVGWarhawk]

There are any number of lethal ways that we could put down an intruder once he is in the classroom. However, once he is in the classroom, it is too late; people will die. Since the object is to prevent these shootings in the first place, prevent the mental anguish to the student and keep the classroom as a safe environment where the student (especially the young student) is comfortable and able to learn, bullets flying in the classroom, electric floors in the classroom, brains on the wall in the classroom, et al, are a failure. Prevention is the key, and that is not prevention. Of course, mental health services and the like must be examined, but that is beyond the scope of a school district and it's employees. What has to happen is a reexaminiation of security procedures. Cameras are a must now. Every school I worked at had cameras at the main entrance, but did not have them in the halls as they are for AVG. That is a must now. Once the lockdown is sounded, those children are safe. Schools must work on their methods of determining when the lockdown should sound. As I had stated in another thread, every elementary school I ever visited had a door that was unlocked. Everyone knew how to get in. That has to stop.

My kids school practice lockdown. It is as common as a fire drill. Just like the good old days :O: with the duck and cover for atomic blasts so too do my kids duck and cover to avoid a fully auto.

[GoldenRivet]

Another alternative i had seen somewhere:

arm veterans, and put them on campuses across the US with the job of protecting students and teachers.

1 you give the students one more positive hero type role model, and 2 you put another barrier in place between the innocents and the crazies

[Onkel Neal]

Come on, Tak. If I am armed and the shooter comes in my classroom, he's going to get a big surprise. That's part of the problem now--these nutjobs know the schools are a big, fat defenseless target. Guaranteed gun free. That's why the shooters kill themselves as soon as first responders arrive, they know they will face resistance. If it becomes established and well known that all schools have at least two competent armed on site personnel, these nuts will turn to daycares. :stare:

I don't like arming school personnel either, I hate it. But it makes more sense than being defenseless.

http://i48.tinypic.com/jl5m4g.jpg

And no, not happy Texas is #2 in gun homicides, that's terrible.

[Takeda Shingen]

Another alternative i had seen somewhere:

arm veterans, and put them on campuses across the US with the job of protecting students and teachers.

1 you give the students one more positive hero type role model, and 2 you put another barrier in place between the innocents and the crazies

So long as they are still proficient, I am fine with that. And that line of defense is outside the classroom. Even outside the building. Alarms on windows and doors, particularly those that are out of sight of populated areas, are also a good idea.

[Takeda Shingen]

Come on, Tak. If I am armed and the shooter comes in my classroom, he's going to get a big surprise. That's part of the problem now--these nutjobs know the schools are a big, fat defenseless target. Guaranteed gun free. That's why the shooters kill themselves as soon as first responders arrive, they know they will face resistance. If it becomes established and well known that all schools have at least two competent armed on site personnel, these nuts will turn to daycares. :stare:

I don't like arming school personnel either, I hate it. But it makes more sense than being defenseless.

And no, not happy Texas is #2 in gun homicides, that's terrible.

You know how many visitors classrooms get in the course of a day. So, person X comes in and swings up his weapon, and you are going to put him down before he gets a shot off? Not likely. He knows you're armed from that sign, so he puts you down first, then turns on the students. And what is the alternative? Are you going to pull your pistol on every visitor you see and demand identification? Face it, once they are in the classroom it is already too late.

I also don't buy the deterence argument. That young man from last week had no intention of survivng the day. Neither did every school shooter going back to Columbine. They know that they will die, and have no intention of being taken alive.

[GoldenRivet]

And no, not happy Texas is #2 in gun homicides, that's terrible.

Depends on what numbers you look at... Texas falls somewhere between #2 and #20 depending on which one of Tak's numbers you reference

[CCIP]

http://i.imgur.com/98KkG.jpg

Here's some food for thought for ya...

[Onkel Neal]

You know how many visitors classrooms get in the course of a day. So, person X comes in and swings up his weapon, and you are going to put him down before he gets a shot off? Not likely. He knows you're armed from that sign, so he puts you down first, then turns on the students. And what is the alternative? Are you going to pull your pistol on every visitor you see and demand identification? Face it, once they are in the classroom it is already too late.


Aww, man, you are not arguing seriously. :shifty: The shooters usually target and shoot the first person they encounter. In the case of SH, from the news reports, the Principal and VP heard shots and rushed to the shooter. In that case, they could have been able to put him down, if they had been carrying anything more lethal than a stapler.

Yes, the shooter is likely to get off the first shot and several other shots. But at least early on, onsite personnel can prevent him from leisurely entering a classroom and emptying clip after clip into a huddle of children.

No one is going to "pull a pistol on every visitor". That's not a serious point. Cops don't pull a pistol on every citizen they see, but they are effective once the criminal activity begins.

Here's some food for thought for ya...

How many people in the building were armed?

[GoldenRivet]

http://i.imgur.com/98KkG.jpg

Here's some food for thought for ya...

check facts

he was on a military base, at a medical installation partially filled with civilian personnel, and was the only one in the room armed. thus he was not surrounded by people with weapons

[Stealhead]

Another alternative i had seen somewhere:

arm veterans, and put them on campuses across the US with the job of protecting students and teachers.

1 you give the students one more positive hero type role model, and 2 you put another barrier in place between the innocents and the crazies

If you did all of that then the next crazed gunman is going to just find some other softer target there always is a soft target somewhere.The other issue with this idea is that there might not be enough veterans that want to do this or that can.

Also as you said a cop would be the first target so would anyone else that could stop an attack so if they had guns in plain sight they become as much of a target as the cop would be. Honestly though I think the idea of a cop or other armed person being at a location is a big deterrent and would cause an attacker to either plan in great detail and plan to eliminate the threat or simply pick an easier softer target.

The speed at which they attack is another issue one would have to be combat ready gun at the ready 24/7 to truly be prepared to stop such a threat before they can do much or any damage.

I would say that most crazed gunman are more likely to simply pick a softer target where they can cause the most harm if one place becomes a hard target they will just find another location. Because their goal is to kill as many helpless people as possible.Many of them lately have also been wearing body armor which implies that they already expect someone armed to try and stop them and they wear body armor to make this more difficult.

[GoldenRivet]

the next crazed gunman is going to just find some other softer target there always is a soft target somewhere.

correct...

fix the crazy, not the gun rights

[Sailor Steve]

No, the point was extreemly relevant. You just don't like where the relevance is going.
Not so. If the floors were electrified you could have killed the intruder, the teachers and all the kids.

As I said in post #29, if one of the teachers who died trying to stop the attacker had been armed, it might have ended there.

Your "rebuttal" was meant to be silly, and it was.

It does, however address everything else you've stated, so I will go through it.
Everything else you say in this post was true. The object is indeed to prevent this sort of thing from happening, and once he is in the classroom it is too late. That said, what I posted is also true. It might be too late to prevent the tragedy, but if one of those teachers had been armed the tragedy might have been reduced. It was too late to save some of those kids, but not too late to try to save some of the others.

We seem to be talking about two different things. You're talking about how to prevent the tragedy from starting, and again I agree. But this thread is about what to do once the shooting starts.

[Takeda Shingen]

Aww, man, you are not arguing seriously. :shifty: The shooters usually target and shoot the first person they encounter. In the case of SH, from the news reports, the Principal and VP heard shots and rushed to the shooter. In that case, they could have been able to put him down, if they had been carrying anything more lethal than a stapler.

Ouch. I am arguing seriously, at least I thought I was.

At Sandy Hook, clearly the shooter did not shoot at the first person he encountered. He picked a kindergarten classroom; the smallest and most vulnerable students in the building. He was quite methodical in his selection.

Yes, the shooter is likely to get off the first shot and several other shots. But at least early on, onsite personnel can prevent him from leisurely entering a classroom and emptying clip after clip into a huddle of children.

Unless they think they can get there faster than the bullets, you can't prevent the violence in that classroom. And by that point, the other rooms are in lockdown, preventing the violence. Once that is done, the smart thing is to wait for law enforcement to arrive, which shouldn't take long, not to play GI Joe. You've seen how many cops hang around schools.

No one is going to "pull a pistol on every visitor". That's not a serious point. Cops don't pull a pistol on every citizen they see, but they are effective once the criminal activity begins.

I thought it was quite serious. After all, once the killer is in the building without sounding the lockdown, it is the only way you are going to stop him from drawing and shooting in the first place. After all, he has spent a lot of time thinking about how he is going to do it. The teacher is the one who has to react to it, and that teacher isn't thinking about potential threats and sizing up his target. He is thinking about the lesson, the homework and how he is going to get those two knuckleheads in the back of the room to stop kicking each other's seats and actually do their work.

[Takeda Shingen]

Not so. If the floors were electrified you could have killed the intruder, the teachers and all the kids.

As I said in post #29, if one of the teachers who died trying to stop the attacker had been armed, it might have ended there.

Your "rebuttal" was meant to be silly, and it was.

Thank you for telling me what I actually meant. Now you are being deliberately obtuse. We're done here.

[CCIP]

I think it's absolutely true that guns are not the problem, but guns are not the solution either. I'm all in favour of responsible people being armed, but how do you gauge responsibility? And how do you filter out the crazy?

Look, we know everything about guns, but we know remarkably little about mental illness. And I find the idea of "fixing crazy" with a bullet to the head remarkably offensive if not outright fascist. I think resources could be far better-spent preventing this with a more long-term view and investment into public healthcare than a paranoid "shoot on sight" mentality.

[GoldenRivet]

And I find the idea of "fixing crazy" with a bullet to the head remarkably offensive if not outright fascist.

its not fascist when you find yourself in a "me of him" situation. I dont care what delusions he is suffering from when it comes down to "me or him" I'll cure all of his ailments on one moment if i have to no matter how fascist it sounds

[Stealhead]

I think GoldenRiviet means solve the mental health issues in other ways not just kill every mentally ill person just because.We do have very poor access to mental health in this country.There are a lot of people that had mental illness that did something violent before they ever received any real treatment.That is a problem I understand that a good number of people in prison are there because they committed a crime while mentally ill then they are in a regular prison which does not do them much good no doubt and they will be getting out sooner or later unless they have a life sentence.

If we had better mental health care in this country it would solve a lot of problems with crime in general it would at least reduce the number of mentally ill people committing crimes and also greatly reduce the number people going on mass killing sprees.Used to be people that if you had a certain level of mental illness you where put into an institution now there is very little of this and these people get no help or very little.Some live in half way houses and are in open society when they cant handle it.In my county this woman that was a catatonic schizophric got hit by a car and died because she was having an episode and walked into the street she had been staying at a half way house at the time.In most areas the local law enforcement has to spend a lot of time dealing with these people who are not dangerous to others but are sometimes to themselves or do things that require the police to come and take them home.



If someone is in the act of causing violent action to others then you do have no choice but to use deadly force against them the same as a person that is fully aware of what they are doing.

[GoldenRivet]

I think GoldenRiviet means solve the mental health issues in other ways not just kill every mentally ill person just because.

this

throughout the lat 1970s we saw massive closings of mental health facilities. The government saw fit to treat all mental illness on an outpatient basis.:shifty:

people who should have access to such care, now are without it, or are dealing with substandard care.

the results are pitiful

[August]

check facts

he was on a military base, at a medical installation partially filled with civilian personnel, and was the only one in the room armed. thus he was not surrounded by people with weapons

Not to mention the fact that military people, unless deployed in a war zone, are the most unarmed group of Americans there is besides maybe convicts and liberal teachers.

[AVGWarhawk]

this

throughout the lat 1970s we saw massive closings of mental health facilities. The government saw fit to treat all mental illness on an outpatient basis.:shifty:

people who should have access to such care, now are without it, or are dealing with substandard care.

the results are pitiful

The problem is the government institutions were crap. No one was getting treated. It was sub-substandard care. This is the reason for closures. Plus the monetary expense. Good luck with Obamacare right?

[GoldenRivet]

The problem is the government institutions were crap. No one was getting treated.

which is why i think they should have been reformed instead of just closed down.

[AVGWarhawk]

which is why i think they should have been reformed instead of just closed down.

Government reform? Not going to happen. The path of least resistance was shutting them down plus it saved huge dividends. The government is not a health professional and we are going to repeat history with Obamacare

[Takeda Shingen]

Not to mention the fact that military people, unless deployed in a war zone, are the most unarmed group of Americans there is besides maybe convicts and liberal teachers.

Nice one.

this

throughout the lat 1970s we saw massive closings of mental health facilities. The government saw fit to treat all mental illness on an outpatient basis.:shifty:

people who should have access to such care, now are without it, or are dealing with substandard care.

the results are pitiful

I think a lot of reform will be successful based on the method of presentation. The public image of mental wards is not a positive one.

[August]

No, I'm thinking of Texas.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state

Number of Gun Homicides for 2011:

1. California 1220
2. Texas 699
3. Pennsylvania 470

So just about half the gun homicides as California in spite of California having some of the toughest gun laws in the country. Kinda shows that gun control does not work to reduce gun crime.

[Sailor Steve]

Another problem there is that the people who need that care the most don't usually believe they do, so they don't seek it. recognizing and isolating their problems is very hard to do.

And no, I don't claim to have an answer for that one. Everything seems to be "after the fact" in these situations.

[Takeda Shingen]

So just about half the gun homicides as California in spite of California having some of the toughest gun laws in the country. Kinda shows that gun control does not work to reduce gun crime.

Clearly the proliferation of firearms isn't a deterent either. So, maybe we should be looking elsewhere for solutions.

[AVGWarhawk]

I think a lot of reform will be successful based on the method of presentation. The public image of mental wards is not a positive one.

This is a understatement. The mental wards from what I recall were atrocious.

[Stealhead]

Not to mention the fact that military people, unless deployed in a war zone, are the most unarmed group of Americans there is besides maybe convicts and liberal teachers.

Right only the MPs or SPs on a military base are armed at all times.The only time I ever had a weapon anywhere near me in the US or Germany was during qualifying which was once a year and during training exercises where we used the MILES gear and then its all blanks anyway.Even if someone has a combat job they only have live ammo rarely during live fire training.I guess people that are unaware just assume that the military is just everyone toting a weapon all the time.

I don't about convicts they have their shivs and such.

[GoldenRivet]

Clearly the proliferation of firearms isn't a deterent either. So, maybe we should be looking elsewhere for solutions.

So are you saying that neither proliferation nor additional control measures are the right thing to do?

[August]

Nice one.

Am I wrong?

The fact is Takeda, you choose to be unarmed. You choose to put up signs announcing to the entire world that you are unarmed. It is small wonder that these nuts target you. They never take on people who might be able to fight back. Ever hear of a mass murder at a rifle range? Ever hear of a mass murder at a NRA convention?

[Takeda Shingen]

So are you saying that neither proliferation nor additional control measures are the right thing to do?

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying, and have been saying for the past week. There is as much reason to restrict the sale and ownership of firearms as there is to arm teachers in the classroom. That is, none. What is needed it to prevent this from happening in the first place. This means mental health care.

[Stealhead]

We must develop mind reading and telekinetic powers.That way we can read the mind of a person planning violence and hopefully stop them before they do.If the person has very good mind shielding and hides their inner thoughts well and they attempt an attack then we will use our telekinetic powers to bend his guns into a "u" like Superman or Magneto.

[Takeda Shingen]

Am I wrong?

The fact is Takeda, you choose to be unarmed. You choose to put up signs announcing to the entire world that you are unarmed. It is small wonder that these nuts target you. They never take on people who might be able to fight back. Ever hear of a mass murder at a rifle range? Ever hear of a mass murder at a NRA convention?

I've never held a firearm in my life. I have never been the victim of violent crime. Hmmm.

Perhaps they target schools due to the shock value of violence against children. So, no, I don't buy your 'be armed or die helpless' argument.

[August]

Clearly the proliferation of firearms isn't a deterent either.

That statement is not supported by the facts here. How do you know that gun violence would not skyrocket in Texas if they adopted California's gun laws.

So, maybe we should be looking elsewhere for solutions.

Exactly, gun control is not going to work, never has worked and i'm pretty sure it never will work.

[Stealhead]

We must develop mind reading and telekinetic powers.That way we can read the mind of a person planning violence and hopefully stop them before they do.If the person has very good mind shielding and hides their inner thoughts well and they attempt an attack then we will use our telekinetic powers to bend his guns into u shapes like Magneto.

[Takeda Shingen]

That statement is not supported by the facts here. How do you know that gun violence would not skyrocket in Texas if they adopted California's gun laws.

What, you want me to prove a negative?

Exactly, gun control is not going to work, never has worked and i'm pretty sure it never will work.

Yeah, what did I say?

[August]

I've never held a firearm in my life. I have never been the victim of violent crime. Hmmm.

Perhaps they target schools due to the shock value of violence against children. So, no, I don't buy your 'be armed or die helpless' argument.

I don't care what you buy or not Takeda because the facts speak for themselves. Of the 9 named massacres in the United States since 1990 only 3 have been in schools and one of them was at a University which only educates adults.

All nine of them were in Gun Free Zones though.

[Skybird]

As an immediate hotfix measurement to adress the immediate threat, okay.

But the underlying problem is not adressed by this nor solved. There are reasons why the US are the lonely world champion in number of school shooting incidents. And these reasons should be adressed.

So this measurement just is what I just named it as: a hotfix, no solution and no lasting correction in itself.

The underlying problems are cultural, social, and mental.

Germany: after Fukushima the German government was so terribly afraid of the Japanese disaster travelling around the globe only to find and effect Germany, that it decided to leave nuclear power behind. Since then we have exploding costs in an increasingly chaotic effort to turn around our energy production, with our enegry minsiuter having nothing more tzo offer in substance than to advice Germans to wash their laundry not warmer than 40°C.

The American school shooting disatser has reached Germany as well. We already have one of the most punishing gun laws in the world, but as a consequence from what happened in America the Greens want to establish so high a penalty tax on possessing firearms for sports or hunting or (licensed) self protection that they say by that they want to make Germany a private firearms-free zone.

I know how my father stores his now single 9mm pistol he uses for sports. A heavy safe, certified by the police. Several documentations of that and the ammo storage being traded back and forth. Photographys of the safes inside and outside being registered with the police database. If they have the personnel: unannounced home controls (demanded by law). And a weapons license exam that is designed by its pedantic theoretical ammo and hunting details to just scare people away from it. A legal obligation to hold an organised membership in a sports shooting club and practice - to be documented by the president - at least 18 times a year plus obligation to participate in official tournaments - also to be documented pedantically. If you do not do tournament shooting, why would you need to shoot in between then? If you do not visit the range every 2-3 weeks minimum, why should even own a weapon?

Die spinnen die Deutschen... I am by far no campaigner for a general right to carry weapons, but what we have in Germany today just is hilarious, and totally hysteric.

They also want to ban since years all private home storage of legal firearms, and collect them in sport clubhouses. Nice, big, fat, filled weapon arsenals - very attractive targets for criminals breaking in by night and steal them, several dozens if not hundreds of weapons in one rush. But so far the thinking of these dumbheads propagating this does not reach.

Weapon fetishism like in the US does not lead to new grounds. Hystery like over here does not either. The truth is somewhere between the German and American extremes. But considering how deep the society is split in the US anyway, and political trenchwarfare, I have little optimism, even if Obama indeed would ban private ownerhsip of at least SARs (which should indeed have no aloowance in private households, like grenades, missiles launchers, landmines, machine guns, too)... Leave such weapons to the military and law enforcfement. Waging war, and anti-crime self-defence are not the same things.

[AVGWarhawk]

I've never held a firearm in my life. I have never been the victim of violent crime. Hmmm.

Perhaps they target schools due to the shock value of violence against children. So, no, I don't buy your 'be armed or die helpless' argument.

I would agree with Tak here. Schools afford easy targets, least resistence and excellent shock value. Malls not so much.

[Takeda Shingen]

I don't care what you buy or not Takeda because the facts speak for themselves. Of the 9 named massacres in the United States since 1990 only 3 have been in schools and one of them was at a University which only educates adults.

All nine of them were in Gun Free Zones though.

And when this becomes the norm, we can talk about it. But the fact remains that every day gun violence is typically between two armed individuals. It doesn't seem that guns will stop that. So, again, you can rectite the NRA line as much as you like, but it doesn't make it true.

[August]

I would agree with Tak here. Schools afford easy targets, least resistence and excellent shock value. Malls not so much.

See my last post.

[August]

And when this becomes the norm, we can talk about it. But the fact remains that every day gun violence is typically between two armed individuals. It doesn't seem that guns will stop that. So, again, you can rectite the NRA line as much as you like, but it doesn't make it true.

The Norm?

And BTW "everyday gun violence" does not indicate which shootings were in self defense and which ones were murder so using that statistic as a justification to take away peoples Constitutional rights is wrong.

[Takeda Shingen]

Yeah and "everyday gun violence" does not indicate which shootings were in self defense and which ones were murder so using that statistic as a justification to take away peoples Constitutional rights is wrong.

And this is why I can't understand the gun culture. Here I am citing violence as a problem and saying that proliferation may not be the answer and all the sudden I'm trying to take your guns away. What was that about drama again?

[AVGWarhawk]

See my last post.

I did see your post. To not be insensitive, it would seem school shooting is now the 'in' thing. All the kids are doing it.

[August]

And this is why I can't understand the gun culture. Here I am citing violence as a problem and saying that proliferation may not be the answer and all the sudden I'm trying to take your guns away. What was that about drama again?

If you support the AW ban then you are trying to take guns away from American citizens. If you support Gun Free zones you are trying to take guns away from American citizens.

If you want the support of those who believe in the 2nd Amendment then you had better start making suggestions that will actually address the problem instead of shredding the Bill of Rights which won't.

[AVGWarhawk]

The Norm?

And BTW "everyday gun violence" does not indicate which shootings were in self defense and which ones were murder so using that statistic as a justification to take away peoples Constitutional rights is wrong.

Apparently you do not watch the Baltimore news. No doubt what killings were murder....all of them!

[Takeda Shingen]

If you support the AW ban then you are trying to take guns away from American citizens. If you support Gun Free zones you are trying to take guns away from American citizens.

Right, because a parent's right to have their child learn in a legally-required public school enviroment where the teacher is not carrying a gun is an infringement on your right to carry your gun wherever you go. You want to visit a school, leave your gun at home. I don't think that's unreasonable.

If you want the support of those who believe in the 2nd Amendment then you had better start making suggestions that will actually address the problem instead of shredding the Bill of Rights which won't.

Where in the Bill of Rights does it grant you the right to carry your firearm in every and any setting and location? It gives you the right to own and to use. That right is still intact.

[AVGWarhawk]

And I don't want to pee in anyone oats. School massacres get the media attention. The individual shooting at school do not. The first day of school in Baltimore a autistic student was shot in the back with a shotgun while he sat in the cafeteria.

[Takeda Shingen]

Yeah, but we'll all be dead by this time tomorrow anyway. So, it's all academic.

[CCIP]

its not fascist when you find yourself in a "me of him" situation. I dont care what delusions he is suffering from when it comes down to "me or him" I'll cure all of his ailments on one moment if i have to no matter how fascist it sounds

Oh no, I was not implying that at all. By all means - I'll stab someone in the eye with a rusty fork if it means saving myself or a loved one. And I would be happy to have a gun in that kind of situation, as would anyone. The real question is how likely that situation is and whether being armed to the teeth is appropriate.

What I mean is that having a society where guns are the first line of defense is a bit problematic. And frankly, I fail to see how sending a child to a school where there is a one in a million chance of a madman going on a rampage is scarier than sending a child to a school full of people with guns, most of whom I do not know (and therefore cannot trust) personally. After all, the Fort Hood shooting was carried out by someone in a position of authority and trust, who had plenty of training with firearms. And in a world where you can't trust an Army major with a gun, how can you trust a teacher with a gun, alone in a class full of kids?

I know that this is inherently paranoid thinking, but it's a good illustration of the issue. I don't know, to me this just seems like opening a Pandora's box, and a very expensive one.

[AVGWarhawk]

Yeah, but we'll all be dead by this time tomorrow anyway. So, it's all academic.

I'm not buying that story. :O:

[GoldenRivet]

Yeah, but we'll all be dead by this time tomorrow anyway. So, it's all academic.

:haha:

[Takeda Shingen]

I'm not buying that story. :O:

I hope you're wrong, because I just blew my kids' college fund on Rolos. Livin' for the now.

EDIT: I've got to give you credit, GR. Your thread took off like a rocket. Holy crap, seven pages in about an hour.

[AVGWarhawk]

Talk to you tomorrow. :haha:

[Oberon]

Question:

Serbia has the highest number of guns per capita after the US, why has there only been one rampage in Serbia in recent times (2007). Switzerland is number four on the list of guns per capita, most Swiss men have an assault rifle at home after completing their national service, yet when it comes to gun based homicides it has quite a low rate, and I can't recall a single school shooting there. Why is this?

Answer:

I have no idea, but it's something to think about.

[AVGWarhawk]

Question:

Serbia has the highest number of guns per capita after the US, why has there only been one rampage in Serbia in recent times (2007). Switzerland is number four on the list of guns per capita, most Swiss men have an assault rifle at home after completing their national service, yet when it comes to gun based homicides it has quite a low rate, and I can't recall a single school shooting there. Why is this?

Answer:

I have no idea, but it's something to think about.

These men don't play violent video games. :O:

[Dowly]

Answer:

I have no idea, but it's something to think about.

Yep. Alarming amount of these mass shootings happen in the US, I remember
seeing a map that listed all the mass shootings from the past 50 years or something like
that and large majority of them had happened in the US. :dead:
(I have no idea if said map was just propaganda or fact, though)

Like it's been mentioned number of times, mental health care would imho be the way to go.
Of course, it wont completely eliminate the problem, but *maybe* it would
help at least in some cases. :hmmm:

[AVGWarhawk]

On the mental healthcare deal....by and large I think pills are prescribed(in the US) a bit to freely and those that do take the pills to keep them "level" my not be keeping a regular schedule in taking the pill or possibly can not afford the pills in the first place.

[August]

Right, because a parent's right to have their child learn in a legally-required public school enviroment where the teacher is not carrying a gun is an infringement on your right to carry your gun wherever you go.

That all sounds a lot like Skybirds take on Freedom from Religion. What other Constitutional rights would you deny people when in proximity to your children? Freedom of speech, right to trial by jury? What?

You want to visit a school, leave your gun at home. I don't think that's unreasonable.

Now if only criminals followed the rules eh?

Where in the Bill of Rights does it grant you the right to carry your firearm in every and any setting and location? It gives you the right to own and to use. That right is still intact.First off where does it say I don't? Secondly the BoR says citizens have the right to Keep and BEAR arms. Now where does it say "...except for places where anyone might object"?

[August]

(I have no idea if said map was just propaganda or fact, though)

This might be more objective:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_events_named_massacres

[Dowly]

On the mental healthcare deal....by and large I think pills are prescribed(in the US) a bit to freely and those that do take the pills to keep them "level" my not be keeping a regular schedule in taking the pill or possibly can not afford the pills in the first place.

Yeah, I've seen that mentioned about US. But, I dont live there so I obviously,
cant say how it really is.

[Dowly]

This might be more objective:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_events_named_massacres

Think this was what I was remembering:
http://americablog.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Screenshot-50.png

Pretty sure all those can be verified, but like I said, I haven't done so.

[AVGWarhawk]

Yeah, I've seen that mentioned about US. But, I dont live there so I obviously,
cant say how it really is.

The pill pushing for issues is usually the first answer to the question. Some kids it does help. Part of the problem is parents keeping up with the pills. Perhaps the pills are not affordable. On the surface, this is what I see. I have not really gone into in any detail. However, having two kids in school conversations come up concerning certain students, etc.

[Takeda Shingen]

That all sounds a lot like Skybirds take on Freedom from Religion. What other Constitutional rights would you deny people when in proximity to your children? Freedom of speech, right to trial by jury? What?

Where common sense can be employed. You cannot bring firearms on an airplane. You cannot bring firearms into a legislative building. You cannot bring firearms into a school.

Now if only criminals followed the rules eh?

That is a false argument. Criminals do not follow laws, so citizens are not obligated to adhere to them either.

First off where does it say I don't? Secondly the BoR says citizens have the right to Keep and BEAR arms. Now where does it say "...except for places where anyone might object"?

See first argument. Common sense rules apply.

[Dowly]

The pill pushing for issues is usually the first answer to the question. Some kids it does help. Part of the problem is parents keeping up with the pills. Perhaps the pills are not affordable. On the surface, this is what I see. I have not really gone into in any detail. However, having two kids in school conversations come up concerning certain students, etc.

My brother used to eat anti-deps, and he said it helped, but in the long run, he
wasnt comfortable with the idea and how the pills made him feel. Now, he is doing
OK without pills, he got to talk to someone other than his family, someone "neutral", seemed to help.

[AVGWarhawk]

My brother used to eat anti-deps, and he said it helped, but in the long run, he
wasnt comfortable with the idea and how the pills made him feel. Now, he is doing
OK without pills, he got to talk to someone other than his family, someone "neutral", seemed to help.

Sometimes a counselor is the best route to take. Offers a non-judgemental ear.

[Rilder]

Teachers allowed guns? I wouldn't even let my future kids step foot on a gun owner's property, let alone a school where the teachers have guns.

[Dowly]

Sometimes a counselor is the best route to take. Offers a non-judgemental ear.

Precisely. If I have something that's on my mind, I dont usually call my mom or dad about it, I talk it out with my friends. Somehow just easier to talk to them. :hmmm:

[Task Force]

Teachers... with guns... :o

"Imagines his old java programming ex marine Vietnam vet teacher with a rifle teaching class."

Well, It would have made Java interesting.

[Nippelspanner]

Yep. Alarming amount of these mass shootings happen in the US, I remember
seeing a map that listed all the mass shootings from the past 50 years or something like
that and large majority of them had happened in the US. :dead:
(I have no idea if said map was just propaganda or fact, though)

Like it's been mentioned number of times, mental health care would imho be the way to go.
Of course, it wont completely eliminate the problem, but *maybe* it would
help at least in some cases. :hmmm:

I googled and found this:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/lousycanuck/files/2012/12/schoolshootingsmap-545x437.png

From this page (http://freethoughtblogs.com/lousycanuck/2012/12/14/yet-another-isolated-incident-of-gun-violence/)

[AVGWarhawk]

School would be something like this perhaps?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fj5k6toS7i8

[Dowly]

School would be something like this perhaps?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fj5k6toS7i8

"Hilarious scene from the comedy "Back To School" (1986)"

I dont get it. :hmm2:

[AVGWarhawk]

Just a teacher on the edge...does he need a gun?

[August]

Where common sense can be employed. You cannot bring firearms on an airplane.

Sure you can. Bunch of friends of mine did that just a couple months ago.

You cannot bring firearms into a legislative building.

Sure you can. Texas even lets concealed carry license holders to go around metal detectors.

You cannot bring firearms into a school.

True according to many state laws but that only affects those who don't have murder on their mind. A better way to say it is only potential victims cannot bring firearms into a school.

That is a false argument. Criminals do not follow laws, so citizens are not obligated to adhere to them either.

Not its not. Citizens are obligated to follow the law or they become criminals. That's like saying Criminals murder so citizens can too.

See first argument. Common sense rules apply.

Common sense to me is the Newtown Principal and those kids might be alive today if even just one teacher or administrator was allowed to exercise their constitutional rights to use a firearm for self defense. Gun Free Zones, and attitudes like yours, created the situation that allowed those people to be killed.

[eddie]

"Gun Free Zones, and attitudes like yours, created the situation that allowed those people to be killed. "

What over blown horse hockey!:haha:

[Takeda Shingen]

Sure you can. Bunch of friends of mine did that just a couple months ago.

Then your friends must be in law enforcement, because the government says no otherwise.


http://www.ok.gov/cleet/documents/airplane%20faq.pdf

Sure you can. Texas even lets concealed carry license holders to go around metal detectors.

No, that's not true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Texas

Federal buildings - Premises owned by the U.S. Federal Government or its agencies for the purpose of any official business of the Federal Government are covered by Federal statutes that supersede State law. It is illegal in general under said statutes to possess a firearm while in any such location, and possession of a State-issued concealed firearms permit is no defense. Such places commonly encountered include post offices, Federal courts, and offices of the IRS, FBI, Justice Department, Department of Energy, USDA, FDA, etc. A rider tied to the 2009 Federal CARD Act has restricted the Department of the Interior from enacting or enforcing restrictions on carry of arms within lands controlled by the Bureau of Land Management; CHL permittees may carry concealed while in a federal park or wildlife preserve contained wholly or partially within the borders of the State of Texas. However, Army Corps of Engineers properties (including all reservoir lakes and included park areas) are still off-limits.

True according to many state laws but that only affects those who don't have murder on their mind. A better way to say it is only potential victims cannot bring firearms into a school.

Machismo aside, this brings us to the next part.

Not its not. Citizens are obligated to follow the law or they become criminals. That's like saying Criminals murder so citizens can too.

That was exactly the point that were were making above and in the original comment that I quoted. Criminals don't follow laws, therefore the law is invalid and should be eliminated.

Common sense to me is the Newtown Principal and those kids might be alive today if even just one teacher or administrator was allowed to exercise their constitutional rights to use a firearm for self defense. Gun Free Zones, and attitudes like yours, created the situation that allowed those people to be killed.

I spent seven pages explaining why that was not the case. I am not going to repeat myself.

[AVGWarhawk]

Tak:
Then your friends must be in law enforcement, because the government says no otherwise.

Each airline has it's own rules on personal weapons. Usually carry in a locked case. No ammo.

[Takeda Shingen]

Tak:


Each airline has it's own rules on personal weapons. Usually carry in a locked case. No ammo.

Yes. They can also be transported in the baggage hold under similar conditions. That is different than an on-your-person carry, which is what I assumed we were talking about.

[Nippelspanner]

Gun Free Zones, and attitudes like yours, created the situation that allowed those people to be killed.

:/\\!!

[AVGWarhawk]

Yes. They can also be transported in the baggage hold under similar conditions. That is different than an on-your-person carry, which is what I assumed we were talking about.

Well, no, you can not waltz on the aircraft like a cowboy with six shooters swinging from the hips. :haha:

[Takeda Shingen]

Well, no, you can not waltz on the aircraft like a cowboy with six shooters swinging from the hips. :haha:

:haha:

In seriousness, since we are talking about the whole 'gun owners and victims' thing, even with the weapon in your carry-on, it's going to take some time and effort to get to it and get it ready to use under those requirements. Not exactly great protection in that state.

[AVGWarhawk]

:haha:

In seriousness, since we are talking about the whole 'gun owners and victims' thing, even with the weapon in your carry-on, it's going to take some time and effort to get to it and get it ready to use under those requirements. Not exactly great protection in that state.

Oh no, the gun is useless in the box certainly. This is the intent. It works. Now I can not account for throwing the heavy box and clocking someone in the head. :-?

[Oberon]

http://gifsoup.com/webroot/animatedgifs6/2524610_o.gif

[August]

No, that's not true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Texas

Then Wiki is wrong:

Five states allow people with concealed-carry permits to bring weapons into their capitols, according to Morgan Cullen, a Denver-based staff liaison at the National Conference of State Legislatures (http://topics.bloomberg.com/national-conference-of-state-legislatures/). Two allow anyone to carry them, he said. Texas lets members of the public with permits carry guns into its Capitol building, according to Tom Vinger, a spokesman for the Texas Department of Public Safety, which administers security there. Last year the state installed a separate line for permit-holders to avoid metal detectors.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-01-26/arizona-senators-can-carry-guns-in-legislature-state-leader-pearce-says.html

[Tribesman]

No, the problem is telling who is insane before hand. Your answer is to disarm everybody, which still leaves insane people around. And which is impossible anyway.

Really Steve?

Your answer is to disarm everybody
Really Steve?

Your answer
Really Steve?
Then no doubt you will be able to find an example where I have proposed that as an answer.
After all if it is my answer you should be able to prove that it is my answer a it would be very simple to prove if it were true.


I googled and found this:


Yes Spanner, but thats no good as August thinks wars are the same as school shootings.
Unless of course he is just being dishonest and padding the numbers out to pretend that he really has a point:rotfl2:

[Sailor Steve]

Sorry, Tribesman, but I'm done scrolling back through pages to find the post your're referring to. Until you figure out how the quote function works you get no more answers from me; at least not to things you've "quoted".

And once again you play the "cryptic" game. I will continue to call you on your deliberate vagueness. Either debate the subject honestly or shut up.

[Tribesman]

Sorry, Tribesman, but I'm done scrolling back through pages to find the post your're referring to.
Its bloody simple Steve you made a claim that I wanted to disarm everybody.
I challenge you to find a single example that will back up that ridiculous claim you made.

at least not to things you've "quoted".

Errrr...you are quoted not "quoted" it is your words

I will continue to call you on your deliberate vagueness.
Make your mind up. How am I being deliberately vauge yet appaerntly definately calling for something like you claimed I did.

Either debate the subject honestly or shut up.
Yoo hoo .....it is you who is being called out on your ridiculous claim, so be honest and put up or shut up and withdraw your foolish allegation

[mookiemookie]

Many state buildings in Texas have 30.06 signs and pretty much every bar has a 51% sign. Basically what those mean is "you carry a concealed gun in here, you get in trouble and could go to jail."

http://www.burger.com/gunfaq08.htm

46.03 tells you where guns are not permitted at all:

http://law.onecle.com/texas/penal/46.03.00.html

[Sailor Steve]

Its bloody simple Steve you made a claim that I wanted to disarm everybody.
I challenge you to find a single example that will back up that ridiculous claim you made.
Once again you miss the point entirely. I like to double-check the context, and you are either too lazy or too obtuse to provide that. It's a simple task that seemingly everyone on this forum can do except you. I'm not saying I didn't say it, I'm saying you need to learn how to use the quote button. I said I'm not scrolling through the entire thread to refresh my memory on why I said it.

Or maybe you do it on purpose.

Errrr...you are quoted not "quoted" it is your words
Prove it. Provide the link to my actual post.

Make your mind up. How am I being deliberately vauge yet appaerntlydefinately calling for something like you claimed I did.
Once again you manage to miss the point. This time the point was your "Oh really?" crap. You don't discuss the question, you just say "Oh really?" or you post a smilie. My point was that you do that all the time. You don't discuss, you mock. You don't debate, you throw out one-liners.

Yoo hoo .....it is you who is being called out on your ridiculous claim, so be honest and put up or shut up and withdraw your foolish allegation
And I'll answer that, the day you learn how to quote somebody with the link, so they don't have to read back through a dozen pages to figure out what you're talking about.

[Takeda Shingen]

I have to go with Steve on that, Tribesman. Learn to use the damn quote button already, or at least the [quote=MemberName ] tag.

[GoldenRivet]

I have to go with Steve on that, Tribesman. Learn to use the damn quote button already

dont count on it

[Tribesman]

Once again you miss the point entirely. I like to double-check the context, and you are either too lazy or too obtuse to provide that. It's a simple task that seemingly everyone on this forum can do except you. I'm not saying I didn't say it, I'm saying you need to learn how to use the quote button. I said I'm not scrolling through the entire thread to refresh my memory on why I said it.

It was a plain enough comment, no way you should get confused about it.

Prove it. Provide the link to my actual post.


Errrr ....your post was quoted.:O: Its as simple as that.
Unlike you who is making a claim about something that I have never said and never would say.
So stop trying to squirm your way out of it, where have I ever said everyone should be disarmed or even made any suggestion remotely resembling such a stupid position?

This time the point was your "Oh really?" crap.
That is called a concise answer, it says everything that needed to be said to bring a proper response from you, the fact that you failed to address the question is a failing on your part not mine.
The fact that I repeated it 3 times in one post about one ridiculous claim you had made should have given you pause for thought about the ridiculous thing you had written. Instead you chose to plod on regardless

And I'll answer that, the day you learn how to quote somebody with the link, so they don't have to read back through a dozen pages to figure out what you're talking about.
The words were there , they were very simple, they were easy to understand, face it Steve you made a silly claim that has no basis in fact and has no relation whatsoever to anything I have ever written here on firearms legislation or any position I have ever taken in relation to that topic.


have to go with Steve on that, Tribesman. Learn to use the damn quote button already, or at least the [quote=MemberName ] tag.
So writing "Steve" and quoting the words in relation to a post by Steve isn't enough for steve to know what he wrote and what it is in relation to?:03:

Good point, as if someone wrote "Your answer is to disarm everybody" then anyone reading it would assume that the person being addressed had suggested disarming everyone, I suppose a quote would fix that, but that would require a quote from Steve of what I had written not me quoting myself which is why I asked him for one to back up what he was quoted as posting.

[Takeda Shingen]

dont count on it

Looks like you were right.

[Tribesman]

Looks like you were right.
Don't quote me on that.
edit to add....oh sorry that quote wasn't a quote as quoted it was a quote from someone else that was quoted

[CaptainHaplo]

Takeda - would you agree that mentally sound, adult Americans have a constitutional right to self defense of their lives?

It is known as the Law of Justification. In the Supreme Court rulings of District of Columbia v Heller and Macdonald v Chicago, the Court stressed that the right was also valued because the possession of firearms was thought to be essential for self-defense. As we put it, self-defense was 'the central component of the right itself.'”; The Constitution, they wrote, secured "the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense."

Now - if you agree that thus every mentally sound, adult American has that constitutional right - as the High Court states - then all 6 adults who perished - and all injured adults - were stripped of their constitutional right to defend themselves by the school system and/or the State and Federal governments that restricted their right to bear arms on school grounds.

I don't agree with arming every school teacher.
I do however thing that any school teacher who qualifies to hold one, which means undergoing the necessary training and paperwork, should have the RIGHT to choose to be armed if they wish.

-or to ask it another way-

Why does choosing to be a teacher require you to give up certain of your constitutional rights?

Sooner or later someone is going to sue the living daylights out of a school district because they lost a family member who normally would have carried - and died without the ability to defend themselves.

"Gun Free Zones" are a specific violation of the constitutional rights of the citizenry. There is no other way to see it.

[mookiemookie]

"Gun Free Zones" are a specific violation of the constitutional rights of the citizenry. There is no other way to see it.

I hate statements like that. They're just another way of screaming "NUH UH! I'm right and you're wrong!"

Jeffrey Toobin points out the problem with Columbia vs. Heller here: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2012/12/jeffrey-toobin-second-amendment.html

[Takeda Shingen]

Takeda - would you agree that mentally sound, adult Americans have a constitutional right to self defense of their lives?

It is known as the Law of Justification. In the Supreme Court rulings of District of Columbia v Heller and Macdonald v Chicago, the Court stressed that the right was also valued because the possession of firearms was thought to be essential for self-defense. As we put it, self-defense was 'the central component of the right itself.'”; The Constitution, they wrote, secured "the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense."

Now - if you agree that thus every mentally sound, adult American has that constitutional right - as the High Court states - then all 6 adults who perished - and all injured adults - were stripped of their constitutional right to defend themselves by the school system and/or the State and Federal governments that restricted their right to bear arms on school grounds.

I don't agree with arming every school teacher.
I do however thing that any school teacher who qualifies to hold one, which means undergoing the necessary training and paperwork, should have the RIGHT to choose to be armed if they wish.

-or to ask it another way-

Why does choosing to be a teacher require you to give up certain of your constitutional rights?

Sooner or later someone is going to sue the living daylights out of a school district because they lost a family member who normally would have carried - and died without the ability to defend themselves.

"Gun Free Zones" are a specific violation of the constitutional rights of the citizenry. There is no other way to see it.

I'll put it this way. No one is disarming anyone. You can keep your guns. You can use them to defend your property and family from criminals and the big bad government, which are the reasons that you all say you want them. You just can't bring them onto school property. If you are a teacher and a gun owner, that is great. Just don't bring you gun to work. It's all common sense. No other way to see it.

I'm starting to think that this is less about keeping kids safe at school and more about advancing the cause of the NRA's view of gun ownership.

EDIT: Great article, mookie. The whole thing about evolving constitutional language is by no means only a liberal view. Conservatives also do it, and with great zeal if it suits their purpose. The efforts culminating with the Columbia v Heller decision were a textbook example of fostering judicial activism. So much for the strict constructionist dogma.

[Sailor Steve]

It was a plain enough comment, no way you should get confused about it.
I wasn't confused about it. I wanted to double-check the context, to remind myself of why I said it. You need to stop making excuses and figure out first how to use this simple and helpful piece of equipment, and second to figure out how to actually discuss something rather than play games.

Errrr ....your post was quoted.:O: Its as simple as that.
But there is no way to double check the context without a whole lot of work. It should be simple, but you make it complicated with your laziness/obtuseness/gameplaying.

Unlike you who is making a claim about something that I have never said and never would say.
And I would cheerfully explain and/or apologize, if I could just reread the whole thing and remind myself of why I said it.

So stop trying to squirm your way out of it, where have I ever said everyone should be disarmed or even made any suggestion remotely resembling such a stupid position?
I'm not squirming at all. As I said, I will gladly address it one way or the other as soon as I can reread the whole conversation.


That is called a concise answer, it says everything that needed to be said to bring a proper response from you, the fact that you failed to address the question is a failing on your part not mine.
You say I said that. Where did I say it? I haven't failed to address the question. You've failed to prove I even said it.

The fact that I repeated it 3 times in one post about one ridiculous claim you had made should have given you pause for thought about the ridiculous thing you had written. Instead you chose to plod on regardless
Not at all. From now on my policy is: No Linkee, No talkee.

The words were there , they were very simple, they were easy to understand, face it Steve you made a silly claim that has no basis in fact and has no relation whatsoever to anything I have ever written here on firearms legislation or any position I have ever taken in relation to that topic.
I still haven't seen myself saying it. Anybody can make a quote box and "quote" anything they want. Proper use of the quote function helps everybody follow the conversation. Maybe that isn't what you want.

So writing "Steve" and quoting the words in relation to a post by Steve isn't enough for steve to know what he wrote and what it is in relation to?:03:
:har:

When in doubt, post a smug winkie smilie.

[Tribesman]

And I would cheerfully explain and/or apologize, if I could just reread the whole thing and remind myself of why I said it.

Well if your memory is that bad start on page 1.


But there is no way to double check the context without a whole lot of work.
You have said you are cursed with a good memory, doesn't the curse work very well when you make a mistake?


And I would cheerfully explain and/or apologize, if I could just reread the whole thing and remind myself of why I said it.

Thats where you fall flat as a statement like you made is very clear and leaves you no wriggle room, it can only mean what it says which leaves you trying to prove that I have ever made a silly claim like that which you specified.

You say I said that. Where did I say it? I haven't failed to address the question. You've failed to prove I even said it.

[August]

I'll put it this way. No one is disarming anyone. You can keep your guns. You can use them to defend your property and family from criminals and the big bad government, which are the reasons that you all say you want them. You just can't bring them onto school property. If you are a teacher and a gun owner, that is great. Just don't bring you gun to work. It's all common sense. No other way to see it.

Didn't you see that Mookie hates statements like this? :)

The thing is Takeda no gun control legislation will ever make our schools so safe that a gun free zone will prevent similar massacres. All laws do is affect those who would abide by them. Madmen and criminals will not abide by them, the latter by definition and the former by their insanity.

All you do by designating gun free zones is disarm anyone who might possibly stop the event. All you do by designating gun free zones is provide a criminal or a madman assurance that if he can get in there he owns everyone inside.

I can't understand how you could see that situation as preferable to a responsible and trained Principal, Teacher or Police Officer on the premises having access to a firearm.

You said:
I'm starting to think that this is less about keeping kids safe at school and more about advancing the cause of the NRA's view of gun ownership.And i'm starting to think that this is less about keeping kids safe at school and more about advancing the cause of some liberal social agenda. If I were Obama I'd be pushing for cops in schools and general security improvements like stouter doors and windows, security cameras and hallways and doors that can be locked down remotely, stuff like that.

Think of it this way, when money is moved we put it in an armored car and guard it with armed men. These days we even keep the places where it is stored on constant video surveillance. Aren't our children worth at least the same degree of security as we give our money?

[Tribesman]

I wasn't confused about it. I wanted to double-check the context, to remind myself of why I said it. You need to stop making excuses and figure out first how to use this simple and helpful piece of equipment, and second to figure out how to actually discuss something rather than play games.


Whatever happened to your curse of a good memory, does it magicly uncurse you and make you forgetful when you make a claim that is completely wrong?

But there is no way to double check the context without a whole lot of work. It should be simple, but you make it complicated with your laziness/obtuseness/gameplaying.

You mean read what you wrote? No need for that, I quoted you, context doesn't come into it as the statement you made was definative and can only have meant one thing, so you are left with trying to show that your statement wasn't just complete bull which was based on nothing at all.
I am even being generous by giving you a wide scope to try and back up your claim.

And I would cheerfully explain and/or apologize, if I could just reread the whole thing and remind myself of why I said it.

Have you thought of starting on page 1?
That wouldn't work though as your attempted arguement came from your imagination so god knows where you would have to look to try and justify it with some factual context.

I'm not squirming at all. As I said, I will gladly address it one way or the other as soon as I can reread the whole conversation.


start on page 1, its as good a place as any if you want the whole conversation. If you like you can stop on page 2 and try to gather your thoughts.

You've failed to prove I even said it.


Its proved and you are quoted, live with the fact.

I still haven't seen myself saying it. Anybody can make a quote box and "quote" anything they want. Proper use of the quote function helps everybody follow the conversation. Maybe that isn't what you want.

The only for reason for someone to make up a "quote" would be if they was a silly liar, a very very silly liar indeed as it is very easy to prove that the "quote" wasn't a quote.
So since you said I wanted to disarm everyone
"Your answer is to disarm everybody" you are unable to quote me and since that time when you have been pushed to back up your statement you have refused to do so.
So does that prove you made up a position to attribute to me, it sort of looks like it.
An easy enough error to make, though the refusal to face up to it does suggest perhaps something else

[Takeda Shingen]

Didn't you see that Mookie hates statements like this? :)

I don't like them either. So, I echoed the phrase back to Haplo.

The thing is Takeda no gun control legislation will ever make our schools so safe that a gun free zone will prevent similar massacres. All laws do is affect those who would abide by them. Madmen and criminals will not abide by them, the latter by definition and the former by their insanity.

All you do by designating gun free zones is disarm anyone who might possibly stop the event. All you do by designating gun free zones is provide a criminal or a madman assurance that if he can get in there he owns everyone inside.

I can't understand how you could see that situation as preferable to a responsible and trained Principal, Teacher or Police Officer on the premises having access to a firearm.

Once again, once the shooter is in the classroom, it is already too late. If he knows you are armed, he takes you out first, then shoots the children. However, this is only a tiny part of the problem. 99.999999...etc percent of teachers will never encounter this problem. However, dealing with parents and students is incredibly difficult under normal circumstances given the amout of leverage the teacher is percieved to have. Parents and community members are constantly attacking teachers over matters of authority. How much more complicated does the job become when the teacher carries the ultimate leverage; a firearm? It's a complication that needed nor warranted other than to advance the cause.

And i'm starting to think that this is less about keeping kids safe at school and more about advancing the cause of some liberal social agenda.

I am advancing nothing. I think that the laws are fine the way that are. It's you, and others like you, who are pushing to change the laws so that you can have your guns on you at all times and in all places. I think that common sense dictates that this just can't work in reality.

If I were Obama I'd be pushing for cops in schools and general security improvements like stouter doors and windows, security cameras and hallways and doors that can be locked down remotely, stuff like that.

Most schools already have doors and cameras, etc. And having armed security in schools is a fine idea; one that I think should and will be implemented in the very near future. But we are talking about arming teachers, which I, for the reasons I have mentioned throughout this thread, think is a very bad idea. Fortunately, it seems that this will not be implemented, at least in any wide or far-reaching scale, as no union is going to want to deal with the liability of having an armed teacher on the job. And while I do think that teachers unions have contributed to the problems of American education, I agree with them in that stance. Armed teachers are lawsuits waiting to happen.

Think of it this way, when money is moved we put it in an armored car and guard it with armed men. These days we even keep the places where it is stored on constant video surveillance. Aren't our children worth at least the same degree of security as we give our money?

Those armed men are professionals; many are former law enforcement. The high school that I worked in had similar, albeit unarmed, ex law enforcement as security. I would have no problems seeing them armed.

[Tribesman]

All you do by designating gun free zones is disarm anyone who might possibly stop the event. All you do by designating gun free zones is provide a criminal or a madman assurance that if he can get in there he owns everyone inside.

I can't understand how you could see that situation as preferable to a responsible and trained Principal, Teacher or Police Officer on the premises having access to a firearm.

Oh dear:doh:
I wonder who is permitted to carry guns in gun free zones or is it really the mythical world of August where a gun free zone means no guns no way no where no never at all:rotfl2:
Amazing stuff gun free zones ain't they.
no guns , well apart from any that are in this list of stuff and any that are in that list of stuff oh and any that are with this set of terms and any that are under that set of circumstances...and thats just schools that are gun free zones, there is a whole lot of other conditions allowing guns in other gun free zones.

Does that mean the whole gun free zones mean only nutcases can have guns as no on else is allowed is complete bull just like the gun laws mean only criminals have guns nonsense the NRA parrots repeat?
Certainly seem like it.

Should I quote the legislation in case anyone thinks exemptions are not part of 922 and were foolishly made up to pretend I had a point:rotfl2:

[Sailor Steve]

Well if your memory is that bad start on page 1.
That's precisely what I refuse to do, and what I said in the first place. It's your job to give an actual reference. It's very simple, yet you can't seem to do it.

You have said you are cursed with a good memory, doesn't the curse work very well when you make a mistake?
Oh no. I call it a curse because I remember stupid things I did fifty years ago.

Thats where you fall flat as a statement like you made is very clear and leaves you no wriggle room, it can only mean what it says which leaves you trying to prove that I have ever made a silly claim like that which you specified.
Not in the least. I'll be glad to discuss what I said, make my excuses or apologize. I'm just tired of you not being able to figure out how the quote button works. Quote the post, with link, and we'll have that discussion. I don't doubt that you're right. You usually are. I'm just tired of your games.

[Sailor Steve]

Whatever happened to your curse of a good memory, does it magicly uncurse you and make you forgetful when you make a claim that is completely wrong?
You're repeating yourself. And you're starting to use troll phrases again. Mocking rather than discussing.

You mean read what you wrote? No need for that, I quoted you, context doesn't come into it as the statement you made was definative and can only have meant one thing, so you are left with trying to show that your statement wasn't just complete bull which was based on nothing at all.
But you haven't show where I said it at all. We have only your word for that. It's your responsibility to post a real link in the first place. You never do that. Ever.

I am even being generous by giving you a wide scope to try and back up your claim.
No, you're playing another game.

Have you thought of starting on page 1?
You're repeating yourself again. So I'll explain again. It's your job to use the button that provides a link, but you constantly refuse to do that, making following your arguments extremely difficult. If you hadn't used my name in your reply, no one would have known you were talking to me at all. You do that all the time, and unless the post you refer to was very recent, I have no clue who you're quoting. Stop playing games, and I'll gladly answer your challenge.

That wouldn't work though as your attempted arguement came from your imagination so god knows where you would have to look to try and justify it with some factual context.
Now you're playing games again. I've explained that I will justify my claim, or deny it, or apologize, when you can cite exactly where I said it, with the proper link. It's that simple.

the only for reason for someone to make up a "quote" would be if they was a silly liar, a very very silly liar indeed as it is very easy to prove that the "quote" wasn't a quote.

[quote]you are unable to quote me and since that time when you have been pushed to back up your statement you have refused to do so.
So does that prove you made up a position to attribute to me, it sort of looks like it.
I did quote you, using the quote button. I've told you I will address all of that, and gladly, when you start quoting people properly. The choice is yours.

An easy enough error to make, though the refusal to face up to it does suggest perhaps something else
I didn't make up anything. I could easily have been mistaken, but I can't judge that because I'm not going to go back and read every single post just to find out where I said it, and see what I was replying too. You could make that easy by doing what every single other person on this forum does, but you refuse to do that.

I'll gladly answer that challenge, but I refuse to play your games anymore.

[Sailor Steve]

I wonder who is permitted to carry guns in gun free zones or is it really the mythical world of August where a gun free zone means no guns no way no where no never at all:rotfl2:
Once again you mock rather than discuss. You're trolling again.

[Tribesman]

That's precisely what I refuse to do
How can you follow back from a post without following the progress from the start?

It's your job to give an actual reference.
You were quoted, it is your job to back up your claim or drop it.:03:

Oh no. I call it a curse because I remember stupid things I did fifty years ago.

I call it a curse as at a very early age you learn that all politicians no matter which flavour they are do not do what they say they do.

Not in the least. I'll be glad to discuss what I said, make my excuses or apologize.
I am just curious as to how you managed to attribute such a stupid idea on firearm regulation to me.
It echoes that run around with the brady bunch where you went on and on without realising you had somehow added a word which was never present in my arguement and as such were off on the wrong target entirely.

Once again you mock rather than discuss. You're trolling again
That is discussing , after all I do offer to quote the legislation which specificly allows guns in "gun free" zones and do give the end number if anyone wants to look up the relevant part of 18USC to check the facts

[Sailor Steve]

How can you follow back from a post without following the progress from the start?
By not rereading the entire thread.

You were quoted, it is your job to back up your claim or drop it.:03:
How do I know I was quoted? There's no link.

I call it a curse as at a very early age you learn that all politicians no matter which flavour they are do not do what they say they do.
What does that have to do with anything? I explained why I consider my memory a curse, and you come up with nonsense about politicians? Please explain.

I am just curious as to how you managed to attribute such a stupid idea on firearm regulation to me.
So am I, but it's not my job to go back through 10 pages just to find out. If you had used the forum properly in the first place we wouldn't be having this conversation, and you would already have your answer.

It echoes that run around with the brady bunch where you went on and on without realising you had somehow added a word which was never present in my arguement and as such were off on the wrong target entirely.
Old news. Stop playing games and start quoting properly, and you'll get everything you want from me.

That is discussing , after all I do offer to quote the legislation which specificly allows guns in "gun free" zones and do give the end number if anyone wants to look up the relevant part of 18USC to check the facts
No. As soon as you use a phrase like "the mythical world of August" you have stopped discussing and started trolling. I'll go around and around with you about other things, but I've warned you before about that particular game. The last time I said would be the last time. I'm only cutting you some slack now because of our current disagreement, and I don't want to seem petty or vindictive. But you have been warned.

[Tribesman]

By not rereading the entire thread.

Look at the words you just quoted, entire doesn't come into it

How do I know I was quoted?
Trust me I am not a doctor.

So am I, but it's not my job to go back through 10 pages just to find out. If you had used the forum properly in the first place we wouldn't be having this conversation, and you would already have your answer.

10 pages? I thought I had already told you where to gather you thoughts on that particular post.

Old news. Stop playing games and start quoting properly, and you'll get everything you want from me.
Can you deliver world peace? I would be interested if you can get that for me.

No. As soon as you use a phrase like "the mythical world of August" you have stopped discussing and started trolling.
you may have noticed that I do not abide people who base their position on things that are not true, Skybird and August frequently do so so Augusts gun free gun free zones get dealt with in the same wayas skybirds non existant secret EU legislation. both are myths

[August]

I am advancing nothing. I think that the laws are fine the way that are. It's you, and others like you, who are pushing to change the laws so that you can have your guns on you at all times and in all places. I think that common sense dictates that this just can't work in reality.

Excuse me but I never said I am in favor of allowing ME to have guns at all the times and in all places, I said responsible and trained principals and teachers.

You talk about armed Professionals, well the faculty and staff that died at Newtown were Professionals too. Professionals forced by law not to possess the tools they needed to stop that killer.

Now if you're going to put American citizens in that situation then you should provide adequate security for them. This obviously was not done in Newtown. I don't blame anyone. I reserve that for the anti-gun culture which promotes such things as gun free zones (and not just the ones in schools) and I blame the media for constantly glorifying violence and narcissism as a way of life.

[Sailor Steve]

10 pages? I thought I had already told you where to gather you thoughts on that particular post.
No, you dropped a hint. I told you I'm not playing your games anymore. I will answer your charge as soon as you do a proper quote.

Can you deliver world peace? I would be interested if you can get that for me.
Yet another game.

[Tribesman]

No, you dropped a hint. I told you I'm not playing your games anymore. I will answer your charge as soon as you do a proper quote.


Yet another game.
Can I quote you on that?

[Sailor Steve]

Can I quote you on that?
As long as you keep using that little button, feel free. :rock:

[Tribesman]

Well now that I have done a proper quote get on with it.
You did say you would answer:03:

[Sailor Steve]

Well now that I have done a proper quote get on with it.
You did say you would answer:03:
Properly quote the quote in question. Sending me the answer doesn't count! :O:

[Takeda Shingen]

Excuse me but I never said I am in favor of allowing people to have guns on ME all the times and in all places, I said responsible and trained principals and teachers.

And I said that I thought it was a bad idea for the reasons stated before.

You talk about armed Professionals, well the faculty and staff that died at Newtown were Professionals too. Professionals forced by law not to possess the tools they needed to stop that killer.

There is a difference between a law enforcement professional and a professional in a non-law enforcement field. Everybody's a professional something.

Now if you're going to put American citizens in that situation then you should provide adequate security for them.

I agree, and think that having armed professional security is an excellent and realistic idea that most parents, teachers, administrators and community members would agree with. Let them carry openly. Everyone else can leave their guns at home. Advantage cops.

This obviously was not done in Newtown. I don't blame anyone. I reserve that for the anti-gun culture which promotes such things as gun free zones (and not just the ones in schools) and I blame the media for constantly glorifying violence and narcissism as a way of life.

No, I think it is clear that the school did not have professional security, and I don't blame them either. And I think that there is some merit to the violence argument. I have found it odd that the American media is so prudish towards sex and yet so accomodating with violence. Rob and Laura Petrie slept in different beds, but Lucas McCain shot someone every 30 minutes. Both were considered family entertainment.

[August]

There is a difference between a law enforcement professional and a professional in a non-law enforcement field. Everybody's a professional something.

And many people are professionals at more than one thing. We'll just have to agree to disagree. At least compromise in the form of a beat cop is possible as is strengthening doors and other physical security arraignments.

[gimpy117]

well that's just great! isn't the NRA fantasy world just great. It's like it erases the fact that there's a bunch of dead first and second graders

It's like saying there is nothing to worry about having the Kia's seats come loose in an accident, because Volvo's get great safety ratings

[eddie]

well that's just great! isn't the NRA fantasy world just great. It's like it erases the fact that there's a bunch of dead first and second graders

It's like saying there is nothing to worry about having the Kia's seats come loose in an accident, because Volvo's get great safety ratings

:agree:

[reignofdeath]

My statement was relevant. Yours is not.


I completely agree. The real problem is to stop the bad people. It would be nice if we could stop the bad people from ever getting guns. But we can't. And taking guns away from the good people, which seems to be the other sides only answer, won't work either.


True, but this part of the discussion is about what do once we've failed and the shooting starts. Close our eyes and pray the bad guy goes away. Wait for the police to arrive? Or maybe do something about it now.


No, it is neither. It's a backup plan, an answer for what to do once the shooting starts. That you disagree with it is fine. That you think it is a bad idea is also fine. Is it truly a bad idea? We won't know that until the next time the shooting starts.

People had this same discussion when the nutcase drove his pickup truck through the window of the diner in Killeen, Texas, and started shooting people. John Walsh got the shock of his life when he gathered the survivors together and asked what they though could have been done. One woman said "I wish I hadn't left my gun in the truck." The others all agreed. People said that was the wrong attituded, but when two armed men robbed a diner in Anniston, Alabama, and tried to lock everybody in the freezer, one of the patrons pulled his gun and shot them both.

So it's not a bad idea, or a lazy one. It's just one idea of what to do once the shooting starts.

You can argue, and Tribesman can ridicule, but we won't know if it's a good idea or a bad one until it actually happens. Nobody wants that, but sooner or later it will. Then we'll see.


I hate to dig up this old post, but Steve makes an extremely great set of points here on this whole issue. Respect sir:salute:.

[Onkel Neal]

I hate to dig up this old post, but Steve makes an extremely great set of points here on this whole issue. Respect sir:salute:.

:up:

[Tribesman]

I hate to dig up this old post, but Steve makes an extremely great set of points here on this whole issue. Respect sir
I know, but in relation to the suggestion of armed guards being a solution.
Columbine high-school and Virginia Tech both had them didn't they.

[Armistead]

Better to have guards than not. Course if a school has an armed guard, he'll probably be the first target to get it in the back.

They'll be a lot of debate, if the libs get lucky, they might get clips banned, maybe the old assault ban, but it will solve nothing in the end.
If it keeps happening, we'll need several armed guards at schools.

[TarJak]

Why stop there? Why not have a well trained SWAT team assigned to every school patrolling the grounds? It would cost no more than a ban on semi-automatic weapons and would improve employment opportunities.

The thing that the talk about using armed guards doesn't address, is the procedure for the armed guard using their weapon to defend the school. When do they have the go ahead to draw and fire? If they see someone suspicious? If they see someone reaching for what they think is a weapon? When two or more kids are beating up another? After shots are fired?

[Takeda Shingen]

Why stop there? Why not have a well trained SWAT team assigned to every school patrolling the grounds? It would cost no more than a ban on semi-automatic weapons and would improve employment opportunities.

I don't think that's a good idea.

The thing that the talk about using armed guards doesn't address, is the procedure for the armed guard using their weapon to defend the school. When do they have the go ahead to draw and fire? If they see someone suspicious? If they see someone reaching for what they think is a weapon? When two or more kids are beating up another? After shots are fired?

The same way that a cop handles things. If he sees something suspicious, he walks up and asks what's going on. If he doesn't look like he belongs there, he asks them to leave. If he refuses, the person is escorted. If the person gets violent, security responds accordingly.

I have worked in numerous schools with on-site security. They have never handled student discipline. That has always been a matter for teachers and administrators.

[August]

The thing that the talk about using armed guards doesn't address, is the procedure for the armed guard using their weapon to defend the school. When do they have the go ahead to draw and fire? If they see someone suspicious? If they see someone reaching for what they think is a weapon? When two or more kids are beating up another? After shots are fired?

What, do you want a hard bound report TJ? All of those details can be worked out as necessary. I'm imagine most if not all of them are already extensively covered by standard department regulations.

[TarJak]

I don't think that's a good idea.

Nor do I. It was a rhetorical question.

What, do you want a hard bound report TJ? All of those details can be worked out as necessary. I'm imagine most if not all of them are already extensively covered by standard department regulations.
No I don't but I'm sure there will be one with all these details if that's the solution that's selected.